A Brother Asks: Why Is Excluding Women Legitimate?

[LK600]

As Bro John alludes - I would assert that "regular" is a subjective word.

I have to disagree, but only in so much as it applies to the usage by our fraternity. In that regard I think it is extremely specific. Anyone can form a group (even if it is based upon another) and call themselves regular, or whatever they wish. And, it might be accurate within that specific group. The problem is... that has nothing to do with our group in which they remain irregular.

 

[coachn]

I have to disagree, but only in so much as it applies to the usage by our fraternity.

Which is specific only to our organization, as it should be since that's the whole reason behind it.

In that regard I think it is extremely specific.

Yes. See previous comment.

Anyone can form a group (even if it is based upon another) and call themselves regular, or whatever they wish.

Yes, because regularity is defined BY the group determining what applies and what doesn't to their group and with whom they want to mingle.

And, it might be accurate within that specific group.

There is no "might". It IS accurate within that specific group, as it should be since it was made up FOR that specific group.

The problem is... that has nothing to do with our group in which they remain irregular.

Why is that a problem?

 

[LK600]

Which is specific only to our organization, as it should be since that's the whole reason behind it.

Yes, agreed.

Yes. See previous comment.

Agreed.

Yes, because regularity is defined BY the group determining what applies and what doesn't to their group and with whom they want to mingle.

Exactly, yes.

There is no "might". It IS accurate within that specific group, as it should be since it was made up FOR that specific group.

There could be, at least in the way I was meaning. As long as those people are fully in line with whatever groups laws and by-laws they are attempting to associate with, then yes, they could be regular to that specific group (was not referring to us in that statement).

Why is that a problem?

It's not, unless those people in question are trying to associate themselves with us... then it becomes a problem (for them).

 

[coachn]

...There could be, at least in the way I was meaning. As long as those people are fully in line with whatever groups laws and by-laws they are attempting to associate with, then yes, they could be regular to that specific group (was not referring to us in that statement).

And, just as we handle those out of compliance, they will be subject to rule infraction measures when they don't tow the line.

It's not, unless those people in question are trying to associate themselves with us... then it becomes a problem (for them).

Yes! Absolutely!

 

[Warrior1256]

I may be wrong and it may be a long time but it's only a matter of time before females will be allowed to join and be considered regular.

You may be right but hopefully I'll be dead and gone before that day comes.

 

[Bloke]

I have to disagree, but only in so much as it applies to the usage by our fraternity. In that regard I think it is extremely specific. Anyone can form a group (even if it is based upon another) and call themselves regular, or whatever they wish. And, it might be accurate within that specific group. The problem is... that has nothing to do with our group in which they remain irregular.

In some ways "Regular" is akin to the words "illegal" or "legal" - is smoking marijuana, having more than one wife, owning a machine gun or drinking beer illegal ? It depends on the legal jurisdiction. You are not breaking the law where such actitivity is legal. You are where it is. Regularity is the same, you are regular sitting in lodge with a woman or atheist within a jurisdiction where that is permitted yet committing a masonic offense for doing the exact same thing in other systems.

 

[CLewey44]

You may be right but hopefully I'll be dead and gone before that day comes.

Lol i hear you, Brother

 

[Bloke]

This topic exemplifies why Freemasonry is commonly regarded as speculative and not a science

Yep. Many people might dismiss your comment James, but you are spot on.

 

[coachn]

James said: ↑
This topic exemplifies why Freemasonry is commonly regarded as speculative and not a science

Yep. Many people might dismiss your comment James, but you are spot on.

It's dismissed because the statement confuses the organization, "Freemasonry", with the science the organization points its members toward practicing, "Masonry".

 

[LK600]

In some ways "Regular" is akin to the words "illegal" or "legal" - is smoking marijuana, having more than one wife, owning a machine gun or drinking beer illegal ? It depends on the legal jurisdiction. You are not breaking the law where such actitivity is legal. You are where it is. Regularity is the same, you are regular sitting in lodge with a woman or atheist within a jurisdiction where that is permitted yet committing a masonic offense for doing the exact same thing in other systems.

I do not think the two can be compared Bloke, apples and oranges. Regular is very specific, especially to the person / organization using it. There is no over arching organization binding all of the sub groups together in any shape or form; only that which is accepted as regular and irregular. The question I suppose is, how and by what standard does each of us Judge (for ourselves or even by GL) what is a Mason, regardless of regularity.

 

[hfmm97]

should we close the lodges first?


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app

 

[Warrior1256]

When I first considered joining Masonry I went and sat outside a temple. I noticed that it had a wobbly line of pale blue light from the Blazing Star. I took that as a sign of regularity.

Huh? Seriously?

 

[Bloke]

I do not think the two can be compared Bloke, apples and oranges. Regular is very specific, especially to the person / organization using it. There is no over arching organization binding all of the sub groups together in any shape or form; only that which is accepted as regular and irregular....

We must agree to disagree Bro LK - I think they "Regular" and "Legal" are two very similar words because they are subjective. I think you are thinking like a local cop rather than an international lawyer, and hence I would argue (and we are arguing a point rather than being in an argument ) your "no over arching organsisation" comment supports my view rather than yours. Hence Bro Karen Kidd is completely regular within her own jurisdiction, but not in mine and not in yours. Again, using a legal logic, her passport as a Freemason (the secrets she possesess) is recognised in her own obedience an other obedience where her passport is recognised, but declined in ours where they are not.

...The question I suppose is, how and by what standard does each of us Judge (for ourselves or even by GL) what is a Mason, regardless of regularity.

That's two different questions;

• how and by what standard does each of us Judge by GL what is a Mason

&

• how and by what standard does each of us Judge for ourselves what is a Mason, regardless of regularity

• how and by what standard does each of us Judge by GL what is a Mason

As our own, and only our own GLs set the standard of "Regularity" - what is proscribed and prescribed is set. We cannot judge. All we could do is move a motion in our own Grand Lodge and abide by the decision and its consequences.

• how and by what standard does each of us Judge for ourselves what is a Mason, regardless of regularity

That is a personal question. I have often been invited to sit in a local lodge which has women (Le Driot) but do not do it as I see it as perhaps breaking my obligation., certainly the spirit of it, and it is certainly breaking my Constitution. However, my personal view is I respect the members of that organisation as Freemasons, much like I respect other Denominations of my Religion and indeed other religions. I can hold any view I like, but I am not Free to both remain a Freemason in good standing and visit such a lodge. Moreover, as a great believer of the Masonic Tradition I belong to as a Fraternity, I would not want to see that change, but nor do I personally feel to do any thing other than respect other Masonic Traditions which have branched out in different ways, yet I hold no desire to participate in them.

 

[LK600]

We must agree to disagree Bro LK

lol... I'm not even sure at this point what the subject is.

Okay, here's what I'm saying (hopefully). There is only one "regular" that matters to me. It's that which is deemed regular by our Craft/system. There is no other regular that pertains to me. Obviously, any group can make a set of rules/bylaws and those within that group are functionally regular to themselves. But that has no relevance nor consequence to mine. We are not one group with different regularities (meaning what I said earlier... no overarching organization binding us together as anything - regular and irregular).

I to, cannot sit with them in Lodge for I would be breaking my obligation(s) at minimum. Nor can I communicate with them in reference to specific Masonic subjects. Nor can I accept them as a Brother. I would wager, all of these things that apply to me would also apply to you as well. I'm saying that anyone can be regular to their own group based upon their own rules, but that changes nothing in reference to the Craft and who is deemed regular or not.

I believe Brother, you are thinking with your heart, and I admire you for that.

I personally feel to do anything other than respect other Masonic Traditions which have branched out in different ways,

And that's where we disagree on this point. I fully respect other organizations regardless, but one of the bigger problems is many of those irregular organizations did not follow Masonic traditions and decided to create their own. This is completely fine, it just makes them not part of our Craft anymore (by choice).

 

[Bloke]

...Okay, here's what I'm saying (hopefully). There is only one "regular" that matters to me. It's that which is deemed regular by our Craft/system. There is no other regular that pertains to me. Obviously, any group can make a set of rules/bylaws and those within that group are functionally regular to themselves. But that has no relevance nor consequence to mine.

Exactly, there is more than one kind of "regular" and only one kind matters to each Freemason

...I believe Brother, you are thinking with your heart, and I admire you for that...

Thanks, but again I am not sure I agree, "Regularity" is a jurisprudence concept, and while it might be emotional, it is also underpinned rules which are facts, even when we allow our emotion shapes those rules; and interesting thing to ponder !

 

[Warrior1256]

I have just retested that lodge and the stream from the Blazing Star is now largely repelled by the lodge.

Uh......er.......O.K.

 

[Glen Cook]

john s nagy could it be that all lodges (whether UGLE recognizes them or not) consider themselves regular?


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app

As an aside, I’d clarify that even within “regular “ Freemasonry, UGLE is not the sole arbiter.

 

[Bloke]

As an aside, I’d clarify that even within “regular “ Freemasonry, UGLE is not the sole arbiter.

Do you think UGLE's Recognition might be at risk because of its Guidelines on Transgender Bro Glen ?

 

[Glen Cook]

Do you think UGLE's Recognition might be at risk because of its Guidelines on Transgender Bro Glen ?

Good question. I don’t know. The summer national meetings are over. KYCH meets in September. CGMNA in February. Perhaps a better feel then.

 

[LK600]

Exactly, there is more than one kind of "regular" and only one kind matters to each Freemason

I understand now the point we disagree on, and it isn't regularity. It's back to the concept of an "overarching" organization where all groups regular, irregular etc are Freemasons. You appear to believe that exists whereas I do not.